I have been trying to learn the Magic square from 13 Steps to Mentalism for quite a while but I am having real problems. It seems to me that it is impossible to work.
I can do any number with 0 or 5 at the end, but the others just never work, does any body else have problems with this?
Can any one do it? if so could you PM me some tips to help?
Thanks
Owen

Re;
"It seems to me that it is impossible to work."

It does, re-read it and you may see what you are doing wrong. I used to do a five square routine in the seventies. My source was either that book or Heath in "Greater Magic". I don't have my copy at hand to go through it with you, and don't do them these days but most likely you are simply missing a step out?

The 5 x 5 is also well described in Will Dexter's "Feature Magic For Mentalists". I'm sure people will come forward with other references if by some strange quirk of fate you have a copy that describes it incorrectly.

Paul.

I have realized what I am doing wrong. It is not that I am missing out a step, it is that I have looked at the illustrations too much. The example that has been given does not seem to work the same way as the other squares do. This is what was confusing. If any body else has any problems PM me and I will try to explain what is wrong with the examples so that you can learn it.
Owen

Well, glad you got that solved.

Paul.

A great version of the 5X5 was marketed in the late 1960s/early 1970s by Tannens. It was called, Rand-o-mental (I think that is how it was spelled). You had 5 different colored piles of computer cards, each one with a totally different number printed on it. The piles were handed out to 5 spectators, each of whom selected one card from each pile (a free choice). The 5 selected cards were added together. A prediction envelope, which was sitting in full view, was opened, and the prediction was shown to match the total generated by the spectator’s selections.

I have always found two problems with the 5x5 square, as compared with the more popular (justifiably, in my opinion) 4x4 square:

First, it's more difficult for audience members to add sets of five numbers than of four, so it's harder for them to verify what you've done.

Second, the number of different ways a 5x5 square sums to the target number (rows, columns, and main diagonals) is vastly overpowered by the number of ways achieved by a 4x4 square (rows, columns, main diagonals, pandiagonals, corners of the 4x4 square, corners of all four internal 3x3 squares, corners of all five internal 2x2 squares, and the two opposite central pairs... a total of 24 different combinations). Thus the latter seems more "magical", and thus more astounding to the audience, even though the work necessary to construct one is negligible (a single simple subtraction, with the method I use).

... Doug

Actually, there are up to 1,394 combinations of five cells in a 5 x 5 Magic Square that will add up to 65 (which is the standard magic total), as opposed to 86 combinations of four cells in a 4 x 4 Magic Square.

Having said that, I haven't (yet) done the analysis to show how many of these combinations, in either Magic Square, form symmetrical patterns or otherwise "pretty" shapes.

What Mark observes is technically correct, of course, but there are two caveats: first, it only applies to very specific magic squares (such as one that adds to 65), and not to those adding to any audience-selected number; and second (as he observes), the vast majority of these combinations are "uninteresting" (such as "squares 1, 3, 6, and 13").

... Doug

I agree with Doug. Why bother with a 5x5. To the layman it doesn't make much of a difference to the effect. In fact I think if you showed someone a 4x4 square one week and a 5x5 the next they'd think it was the same trick unless they were a mathematician or a magician.

Agreed. Plus it is very anti-climatic to keep adding up rows and diagonals. They get it. They all add up to the same number.

I agree too! 4X4 is as impressive as a 5X5. Unless the audiences are mathematicians

Have you guys seen John Archers magic square ....... I love it I think it is so funny his method is clear and, I think quiet clever! I love perfomring it - I do it a little slower and only use his method. I think well worth a look.

I like John Archers version, but I think its a 4 x 4 square?